College Football 2017

[Spinner]

Originally Posted by havok88

Probably at least as good as UTEP.

ETA: Good thing TCU has the win over jackson state to really prove their worth in the top 10. Seriously, your bias is getting old. You dont like Alabama, we get it. I can really care less about the team, but their program is a powerhouse. You're make arguments for the sake of making arguments. Alabama will finish the season playing Georgia, one of the current best teams in the country, and will go on to the playoffs if they win, while your Big 12 schools will just declare someone a champion and hope that team appeals to the playoff committee.

Actually, it has nothing to do with whether or not Alabama is a powerhouse, there are plenty of other teams out there that can be called powerhouses too that I really could care less about, I just choose to focus on Alabama as a symptom of everything that is wrong with collegiate football at the Division I level.

As for bias, I think the pollsters and the folks that sit on the committee are the ones showing bias at every turn when it comes to certain teams, Clemson being the example I just cited the other day and Alabama certainly is among those annointed, favored few. If in fact staying unbeaten is so important, at least in your eyes, then the fall for a team that does lose should be steeper for those teams at the very top of the polls. Thus, Oklahoma shouldn't have fallen quite as far, and Clemson definitely should have fallen farther than they did. And for the # 1 team, whether it be Alabama or some other school, the fall down through the rankings should be even more precipitous.

I wouldn't really have a problem with that bias, or the feverish, almost fanatical devotion of their fans (I get it, not much else going on sports wise in Alabama, unless we count the Birmingham Black Widows of the Women's Indoor Football League, or the Birmingham Barons AA baseball team in the Southern League). I get it, the Crimson Tide is the so called standard that all other college teams should aspire to, but the pollsters and committee shouldn't automatically grant them some sort of exalted status because of that whole powerhouse notion.

And before they or their fans can hold themselves up as that standard, they should have to face a bit more of a journey than what looks like a relatively easy schedule overall, and then a trip to a semi-final game as a reward for finishing in the top 4 of whomever the "playoff" committee deems worthy of playing for what still seems to be a mythical national championship.

If they're the standard, then they should have to pass through the crucible of an actual playoff, and face more than one team for the right to play in the so called "championship" game. Until then, they are just a very good football team that, like all the other teams out there, hope they won't lose a game that would ruin their season. The idea that even one loss can ruin a team's championship hopes is just ridiculous.

Which pretty much sums up where Div I football is at right now.

[havok88]

Originally Posted by Fubar

Wrong. Big 12 now has a championship game. Not that I hold much stock in the Big 12 these days. The only teams they can beat are themselves and over-ranked B1G teams.

ahh, I stand corrected, I didnt realize they changed the rules.

[havok88]

Originally Posted by Spinner

....

But before they or their fans can hold themselves up as that standard, they should have to face a bit more of a journey than what looks like a relatively easy schedule overall, and then a trip to a semi-final game as a reward for finishing in the top 4 of whomever the "playoff" committee deems worthy of playing for what still seems to be a mythical national championship.

If they're the standard, then they should have to pass through the crucible of an actual playoff, and face more than one team for the right to play in the so called "championship" game. Until then, they are just a very good football team that, like all the other teams out there, hope they won't lose a game that would ruin their season. The idea that even one loss can ruin a team's championship hopes is just ridiculous.

Did you skip over my post where I pointed out the fluffer in TCU's schedule? Why does Alabama get flack for it but not them? If you have a problem with something, have a problem with it across the board, but no, you have the NCAA standard, and you have the Alabama standard.

[Spinner]

At this point I don't think the committee really even cares about championship games. When you think about it, if that was the case, Penn State would have been in the playoffs last year. Probably should have been anyway, especially since they beat Ohio St straight up during the season.

Originally Posted by havok88

Did you skip over my post where I pointed out the fluffer in TCU's schedule? Why does Alabama get flack for it but not them? If you have a problem with something, have a problem with it across the board, but no, you have the NCAA standard, and you have the Alabama standard.

I'm not the one always going on about how having that one loss during the season is such a big deal. If they had a true college playoff, it wouldn't matter so much, if at all. As I've already stated, I think it is ridiculous that one loss can ruin a team's chances for making it what passes for a playoff. Having a loss used to be a bigger deal back when the NC was voted for (and not always unanimously, as we saw with separate polls way back when).

If they want to incentivize the top 4 positions in the rankings, make that about getting a bye during the first round, as I've already suggested. At that point, being unbeaten would at least count for something. But just having a "playoff" that starts at the semi-finals isn't a playoff, and my opinion is that unless they have to face at least 3 highly ranked teams in a playoff they haven't really shown anything, other than they can remain unbeaten and are the darlings of the committees and the coaches. I think the ghost of Bear Bryant probably hovers over it all, too.

As for TCU, they're not Alabama. I expect a powerhouse team such as Alabama to pad their schedule with tougher, not weaker opponents. And if TCU should have a good season and somehow wind up ranked in the top 12, per the playoff committees determination, then they should have just as much of a chance to play for the championship as the # 1 seeded team, whoever that may be.

[havok88]

Originally Posted by Spinner

At this point I don't think the committee really even cares about championship games. When you think about it, if that was the case, Penn State would have been in the playoffs last year. Probably should have been anyway, especially since they beat Ohio St straight up during the season.



I'm not the one always going on about how having that one loss during the season is such a big deal. If they had a true college playoff, it wouldn't matter so much, if at all. As I've already stated, I think it is ridiculous that one loss can ruin a team's chances for making it what passes for a playoff. Having a loss used to be a bigger deal back when the NC was voted for (and not always unanimously, as we saw with separate polls way back when).

If they want to incentivize the top 4 positions in the rankings, make that about getting a bye during the first round, as I've already suggested. At that point, being unbeaten would at least count for something. But just having a "playoff" that starts at the semi-finals isn't a playoff, and my opinion is that unless they have to face at least 3 highly ranked teams in a playoff they haven't really shown anything, other than they can remain unbeaten and are the darlings of the committees and the coaches. I think the ghost of Bear Bryant probably hovers over it all, too.

As for TCU, they're not Alabama. I expect a powerhouse team such as Alabama to pad their schedule with tougher, not weaker opponents. And if TCU should have a good season and somehow wind up ranked in the top 12, per the playoff committees determination, then they should have just as much of a chance to play for the championship as the # 1 seeded team, whoever that may be.

I will agree with you on Penn St. As Ive said before, I dont think a team that doesnt win their conference should get a spot in the playoffs.

As far as expanding the playoffs is concerned, as ive mentioned before, when you expand it to 8-16 teams like you wants, you are adding in teams that already have 2-3 losses to other teams in the playoffs. You are increasing the teams, but its not really changing anything other than the length of the season. I could go with 6-8 teams, but anything more than that is pointless.

Why would Alabama schedule tougher teams? They are not required to. They meet scheduling requirements just like every other team. What they do now clearly works, why would they want to risk injury before a big game by scheduling a tougher opponent than they have to?

You're right that TCU isnt Alabama. In fact, them being "left out" of the playoffs a couple years ago is one of the reasons I dont think we should be expanding it like you think. Everyone thinks they should be part of it, even when they arent that good. When we make it 16 teams, people will want 32, then they will want to expand it again because of how big the basketball tournament is.

[Fubar]

I'd like to see the Top 8 go at it, but more than that is a waste of time.

[Spinner]

Originally Posted by havok88

I will agree with you on Penn St. As Ive said before, I dont think a team that doesnt win their conference should get a spot in the playoffs.

As far as expanding the playoffs is concerned, as ive mentioned before, when you expand it to 8-16 teams like you wants, you are adding in teams that already have 2-3 losses to other teams in the playoffs. You are increasing the teams, but its not really changing anything other than the length of the season. I could go with 6-8 teams, but anything more than that is pointless.

Why would Alabama schedule tougher teams? They are not required to. They meet scheduling requirements just like every other team. What they do now clearly works, why would they want to risk injury before a big game by scheduling a tougher opponent than they have to?

You're right that TCU isnt Alabama. In fact, them being "left out" of the playoffs a couple years ago is one of the reasons I dont think we should be expanding it like you think. Everyone thinks they should be part of it, even when they arent that good. When we make it 16 teams, people will want 32, then they will want to expand it again because of how big the basketball tournament is.

There may be some teams further down in the rankings with at least 2 losses, I doubt there would be any 3 loss teams in the top 12 at the end of the season. However, if they were in that top 12 group, they could have been a very good team (maybe even Alabama or another top tier team) that had some close games and losses.

Their penalty at that point would be getting seeded lower and having to take on the one of the top 4, if my idea of a first round bye came to fruition. Also, and this is important to note, say a team like Alabama did suffer a couple of close late season losses and dropped out of the top ten, say to #11 or 12. At that point, some of the higher ranked/seeded teams might be at a disadvantage, facing a good team that just happened to lose a couple of close ones.

Even with an expanded playoff, I don't think anybody will be wholly satisfied. If you wound up going to the top 12, teams and fans who just finished out of the money at 13 or 14 would be griping, that's just the way the college game is. Still, at some point they have to go beyond 4 teams, and the pollsters and committee have to stop discounting teams that have a loss, especially late in the season. That's an archaic thought process that goes back to the days when a champion was voted on. As it stands, teams are penalized in a sense for losing late, but not losing early. A loss is a loss, no matter when it happens, but for some reason it gets more weight if it happens toward the end.

More than likely the powers that be will go to an 8 team playoff, as Fubar suggests. I still don't think that's quite enough, but anything is better than a championship playoff that essentially starts with a semi-final. Division 3 football has an unbelievable 32 teams in their playoffs, no reason the top college division can't have almost half as many teams in their playoffs.

[billdawg]

Originally Posted by Spinner

As far as these polls go, there should be a penalty for barely eking out a win against a weaker opponent. Not as precipitous a drop as actually losing, but they shouldn't just get a pass because they (luckily) won the game but got their ass handed to them every step of the way until the final seconds tick off the clock.:

Disagree. A win's a win. This is the problem with the polls and reporters. They make everything subjective. If Team A continues to win all year long and goes 12-0, there's probably some luck involved, but they're also doing something right. So in your mind that team is dropping each and every week, because they're winning close games, yet Team B, whose blowing out everybody climbs, but then can lose a game close, and still be in front of Team A. To me, the Team that can keep winning close games is showing me they can play the game, and find a way to win at all costs. To me that's a TEAM

Originally Posted by Spinner

That would be a more sane way of approaching this whole poll nonsense, because at this point just winning out isn't enough. Especially when you consider all of the cream puffs a team like Alabama has on their schedule.


:

So if winning out isn't enough what do they need to do? Seriously, this entire paragraph has to be one of the more silly statements on CFB I've read in awhile

[Fubar]

It pays to be a winner!

[havok88]

Originally Posted by Spinner

There may be some teams further down in the rankings with at least 2 losses, I doubt there would be any 3 loss teams in the top 12 at the end of the season. However, if they were in that top 12 group, they could have been a very good team (maybe even Alabama or another top tier team) that had some close games and losses.

Their penalty at that point would be getting seeded lower and having to take on the one of the top 4, if my idea of a first round bye came to fruition. Also, and this is important to note, say a team like Alabama did suffer a couple of close late season losses and dropped out of the top ten, say to #11 or 12. At that point, some of the higher ranked/seeded teams might be at a disadvantage, facing a good team that just happened to lose a couple of close ones.

Even with an expanded playoff, I don't think anybody will be wholly satisfied. If you wound up going to the top 12, teams and fans who just finished out of the money at 13 or 14 would be griping, that's just the way the college game is. Still, at some point they have to go beyond 4 teams, and the pollsters and committee have to stop discounting teams that have a loss, especially late in the season. That's an archaic thought process that goes back to the days when a champion was voted on. As it stands, teams are penalized in a sense for losing late, but not losing early. A loss is a loss, no matter when it happens, but for some reason it gets more weight if it happens toward the end.

More than likely the powers that be will go to an 8 team playoff, as Fubar suggests. I still don't think that's quite enough, but anything is better than a championship playoff that essentially starts with a semi-final. Division 3 football has an unbelievable 32 teams in their playoffs, no reason the top college division can't have almost half as many teams in their playoffs.

USC was a 3 loss team in the top 12 last year. It’s uneventful to see teams who have already lost to one another compete in the playoffs. It’s like Alabama vs LSU all over again, but on a larger scale.

It’s perfectly logical why an early season loss counts less than a late season loss. Performance early in the season is not necessarily indicative of how the team will play at the end of the season.

[Spinner]

Originally Posted by billdawg

Disagree. A win's a win. This is the problem with the polls and reporters. They make everything subjective. If Team A continues to win all year long and goes 12-0, there's probably some luck involved, but they're also doing something right. So in your mind that team is dropping each and every week, because they're winning close games, yet Team B, whose blowing out everybody climbs, but then can lose a game close, and still be in front of Team A. To me, the Team that can keep winning close games is showing me they can play the game, and find a way to win at all costs. To me that's a TEAM



So if winning out isn't enough what do they need to do? Seriously, this entire paragraph has to be one of the more silly statements on CFB I've read in awhile

You're absolutely right, a win is a win. Conversely, a loss is a loss, except in the convoluted universe inhabited by those voting in the polls and the playoff committee.

When a loss early in the season can be mitigated by getting back on the winning track, but a loss late in the season dooms a teams hopes of getting into the "playoff" (let's not even refer to it as a plural, 4 teams is a joke), then there is a problem with the mindset of division I football. Why should a late season loss carry any more weight than one early in the season? The idea that a team can subsequently play their way back into contention with an early loss but doesn't have a shot if they lose late in the year is ludicrous.

This whole idea of having to run the table and go undefeated is archaic, going back to when there was no true national champion except in the fevered imaginations of all the voters after the final games of the season had been played. It was like awaiting the results of a figure skating competition at the Olympics, the only thing missing was all the players from every team that had a conceivable shot at being voted #1 sitting on a bench at their school's stadium, all of them holding a boquet of roses and waiting for their scores to come in.

That's no way to decide which is the best football team in America, nor is a "playoff" in which only 4 teams play, shutting out otherwise very good teams that could conceivably beat any one of the 4 teams that got in, especially if one of those teams that was shut out because of a loss had actually beaten one of those teams in the regular season, and then went on to win a conference championship to boot. It happened that way last year, which proves there are serious flaws in the playoff system.

You ask what they need to do if winning out isn't enough, and if you've read enough of my posts in these college football threads over the last few years you know what I think they need to do:

Expand the playoffs to 12 teams, it is that simple.

Originally Posted by havok88

It’s perfectly logical why an early season loss counts less than a late season loss. Performance early in the season is not necessarily indicative of how the team will play at the end of the season.

I'm pretty sure this guy would disagree.

[Fox33C1]

#1 I am for an expansion to 6 teams (1-2 get a bye 3-6,4-5) this covers the big 5 plus one additional. Not top 6, STFU

#2 American Football is a team sport and the entire body of work has to be accounted for. Not only who you beat and where, but how good were they when you beat them. Is FSU's loss to 'bama is tarnished because FSU has lost key personnel? No of course it is not. Case in point 2014 Ohio State, if you watch the sugar bowl vs. 'bama they should have beaten them by 21 or more. Yes read that again OSU had a lot of turnovers and left a lot of points on the field. Oregon was no match at all. How did the CFP committee know this? they saw the body of work, they saw the entire team gel, and start to crush quality opponents.

#3 Conversely is Ohio State from 2016. Anyone who watched saw that team start hot and then they got cold as the season wore on. The loss to PSU was a lot about a lack of offensive execution. By the time Michigan rolled around it was obvious OSU sucked on offense. The Clemson game was no surprise to me (although PSU would have received the exact same treatment and OSU would have killed USC).

#4 the CFP is looking for the best teams at the end of the season, balanced by the body of work. So don't be too surprised if there is a similar event to 2014.

[TennesseeDave]

Butch Jones is done at UT, it’s just a matter of timing. I can understand not throwing an interim HC in there vs Bama, but his dumbass should be fired Sunday. I think the Tide will easily win by 42 points and that’s with Saban taking it easy in the 2nd half.

So, just like five years ago, Gruden’s name is being thrown around. I’ve stated before that I see no reason why he’d ever coach again even though Vegas is taking odds on him going to UT. Since his wife was a cheerleader there and his son is currently a student, people have this delusion that he would give up his ideal job to coach in Knoxville. But.......I may be wrong so they should offer him $10 million a year and make him say no.

[havok88]

And OU barely pulls it off against another unranked team

[Long Walk]

I don't know about a playoff, but I do know that Kentucky just got gutted like a fish in Starkville. That was bad for South Carolina. It makes that 1-point loss in Columbia look really, really bad. SC could win out, which they can't, and still not be taken seriously.

So, for polls, I am definitely one of those looking at quality of wins and quality of losses. A close loss to a good team may indicate that your team has something good going on, but it might mean problems on the other team. I think the polling gets more meaningful as the season progresses.

[AMP]

Sitting back with a Yeungling watching Notre Dame pound USC.

[Sigi]

Originally Posted by AMP

Sitting back with a Yeungling watching Notre Dame pound USC.

Yeah I'm pretty happy right now.

[foxcolt13]

Originally Posted by Sigi

Yeah I'm pretty happy right now.

Yeah me too

[bobmueller]

Holy crap. Cannot believe how badly my Wolverines came unglued in Happy Valley tonight. They got rocked by two quick scores, but I hoped after that second quarter they were going to make it a game.

I think O'Korn needs to be done. He's only got five games left in his college career, and he's not NFL QB material, so benching him now isn't going to hurt his prospects much.

The team has shown such a horrible lack of consistency on both sides of the ball all season. We knew this was going to be a rebuilding year in places, but holy crap guys. You're better than this.

[agonyea]

Yawn !! Bama is off next week , so we can watch everybody else try and keep !